The Enterprise Architect, a Leader in the Enterprise Transformation (ii)

The leader will have a vision, an ideal that inspires people and determines them to follow. He would be finding solutions where few can. A leader does the "right things" some say, but also should do the "things right", a good manager/administrator does.

A leader should be emotionally stable having a degree of Emotional Intelligence (EQ as opposed to IQ), so that he could understand, interpret and control emotion in others. But the leader is in control of himself first. A leader, alternatively, could be passionate to inspire his followers with his energy and enthusiasm. Which alternative do you think is right? ( believe it depends on culture: EQ is cool for the the Anglo-American culture while passion may be the norm for Latin cultures.

It is said that another way to inspire a followship is to act, as in theatre, i.e. play the role of a leader to inspire people. I do not believe this really works to the end although, nobody can deny, acting may have, sometimes, charming results, offering an alternative dimension to the grim reality. But in the long term the one who benefits is the actor, the "leader" and not the group. There is the difference between the role and the reality, the personage and the person. An actor is at his best when plays naturally since he is authentic i.e. there is match between substance and form. A mismatch is decoded by primitive but efficient detectors within ourselves: the eyes which do not smile or avoid looking you into your eyes, the gesture that does not confirm the words, the intonation gone the other way.

Leadership needs authenticity to succeed, that is the image shown should fit the substance and competence. Authenticity means "you do what you say" and "you say what you think".

There are archetypes or worse stereotypes of leader types. The hero in films is a typical example. People are moulding themselves on heroes since early childhood. We struggle to imitate the best, their behaviour, we learn from them. There is also the stereotype of the business manager played by many, unfortunately. Someone who looks confident, decided, sure of success, looking the part but without the depth to deliver.

The problem is that without the underlying professional ability, the confidence is wrong footed and the results average. The surrogate leader fails without knowing why since he is playing the role well and moreover believes in himself. Acting alone will not deliver professional results.

In a culture driven by acting leaders the real work would not be prized any longer; meritocracy would be applied in terms of acting skills. An acting leader can empower, delegate but the immediate ranks feel the competence void and are tempted to step up the ladder. Then leadership will be maintained not by respect inspired by competence but through power, minute control and politics.

The style of leadership depends on field: a warrior leader would be bold and ready to fight, a president would be a decision maker, and a conductor would orchestrate the individuals in the orchestra. This would require different qualities.

Leadership depends on situation. A company in difficult times for instance. In normal times leadership is welcome but not in demand.

Leadership does not necessarily means moral "good"; the proposed ideal appeals to followers good or evil. It is still leadership. There are evil leaders having their followers. Usually, they take on the good cause leaders.

Why people follow? Because trust, belief, the lack of doubt it is said to make people content, if not happy. Following is easier than leading. Too many choices or decisions makes us unhappy, it was discovered. People follow because of fear as well in order to get protection.

Finally, leadership comes from will or desire to lead, since it is not solely a blessing but a very consuming activity, requiring sacrifice and dedication to the cause.

Adrian Grigoriu is an executive consultant in Enterprise Architecture now living in Sydney, Australia. Shortlisted for the Computer Weekly IT Industry blogger of the year 2011. Former Head of Architecture and EA at OFCOM, the Agency providing regulation to frequency spectrum utilization and broadcasting industry in the United Kingdom. Previously Chief Architect of TMForum, the standards organization providing Frameworx, the Integrated Business Architecture framework for the telecommunications and digital media industries. Adrian also is an Executive Enterprise Strategy and Architecture Consultant and author of "An Enterprise Architecture Development Framework" book available on Amazon and Kindle at Trafford and elsewhere. Reviews of the book are available from BPTrends and the Angry Architect. Here is a short Enterprise Architecture animated slideshow summarising his view. Adrian also offers an EA and business architecture training course on-demand, based on the book. You may get in touch at grigoriu@hotmail.co.uk. His website.

Disclaimer: Blog contents express the viewpoints of their independent authors and
are not reviewed for correctness or accuracy by
Toolbox for IT. Any opinions, comments, solutions or other commentary
expressed by blog authors are not endorsed or recommended by
Toolbox for IT
or any vendor. If you feel a blog entry is inappropriate,
click here to notify
Toolbox for IT.